Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

No. L-16218. November 29, 1962.

ANTONIA BICERRA,DOMINGO BICERRA,BERNARDO


BICERRA, CAYETANO BICERRA,LINDA BICERRA,PIO
BICERRA and EUFRICINA BICERRA, plaintiffs-
appellants, vs. TOMASA TENEZA and BENJAMIN
BARBOSA, defendants-appellees.
Jurisdiction; Action for recovery of damages arising from
demolished house; Nature of Action.—A house, even if situated or land
belonging to a different owner, is classified as immovable property.
However, once it is demolished, its character as an immovable ceases.
Hence, an action for recovery of damages in connection with the
demolished house, does not involve title to real property, and falls
under the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court or the court of
first instance, depending on the amount of the demand. Although the
plaintiffs ask that they be declared owners of the dismantled house
and/or of the materials, such declaration in no wise constitutes the
relief itself which if granted by final judgment could be enforceable by
execution, but is only incidental to the real cause of action to recover
damages.

APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance


650
650 SUPREME COURT
REPORTS ANNOTATED
Bicerra vs. Teneza
of Abra.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Agripino Brillantes and Alberto B. Bravo for plaintiffs-
appellants.
Ernesto Parol for defendants-appellees.
MAKALINTAL, J.:
This case is before us on appeal from the order of the Court of
First Instance of Abra dismissing the complaint filed by
appellants, upon motion of defendants-appellees on the ground
that the action was within the exclusive (original) jurisdiction
of the Justice of the Peace Court of Lagangilang, of the same
province.
The complaint alleges in substance that appellants were the
owners of the house, worth P200.00, built on a lot owned by
them and situated in the said municipality of Lagangilang;
that sometime in January 1957 appellees forcibly demolished
the house, claiming to be the owners thereof; that the materials
of the house, after it was dismantled, were placed in the
custody of the barrio lieutenant of the place; and that as a
result of appellees’ refusal to restore the house or to deliver the
materials to appellants the latter have suffered actual
damages in the amount of P200.00, plus moral and
consequential damages in the amount of P600.00. The relief
prayed for is that “the plaintiffs be declared the owners of the
house in question and/or the materials that resulted in (sic) its
dismantling; (and) that the defendants be ordered to pay the
sum of P200.00, plus P600.00 as damages, and the costs.”
The issue posed by the parties in this appeal is whether the
action involves title to real property, as appellants contend,
and therefore is cognizable by the Court of First Instance (Sec.
44, par. [b], R.A. 296, as amended), or whether it pertains to
the jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace Court, as stated in
the order appealed from, since there is no real property
litigated, the house having ceased to exist, and the amount of
the demand does not exceed P2,000.00 (Sec. 88, id.). 1

_______________
1 This amount, cognizable by the Justice of the Peace Court, has been increased to P5,000
in R.A. 2613, enacted August 1, 1959.
651
VOL. 6, NOVEMBER 29, 651
1962
People vs. Paulin
The dismissal of the complaint was proper. A house is classified
as immovable property by reason of its adherence to the soil on
which it is built (Art. 415, par. 1, Civil Code). This classification
holds true regardless of the fact that the house may be situated
on land belonging to a different owner. But once the house is
demolished, as in this case, it ceases to exist as such and hence
its character as an immovable likewise ceases. It should be
noted that the complaint here is for recovery of damages. This
is the only positive relief prayed for by appellants. To be sure,
they also asked that they be declared owners of the dismantled
house and/or of the materials. However, such declaration in no
wise constitutes the relief itself which if granted by final
judgment could be enforceable by execution, but is only
incidental to the real cause of action to recover damages.
The order appealed from is affirmed. The appeal having been
admitted in forma pauperis, no costs are adjudged.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista
Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ.,concur.
Order affirmed.
Note.—Buildings are considered immovable provided they
are substantially adhered to the land (Article 415, No. 1, Civil
Code), whether the building is built on one’s own land or on
rented land. It is obvious that the inclusion of the word
“building” as a separate and distinct enumeration from the
land in Article 415 of the Civil Code can only mean that a
building is by itself an immovable property (Lopez vs. Oroso,
Jr., et al., L-40817-1.8, Feb. 28, 1958; Associated Insurance &
Surety Co., Inc. v. lya, et al., L-10837-38, May 30, 1958). The
nature of a building does not depend on the way the parties
deal with it (Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644).
________________

S-ar putea să vă placă și